jason_paloalto said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Taking it to my next appointment.
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
KevinCompounds said:For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsKevinCompounds said:For the archive: it took about six weeks rather than the two I expected, and the difference between those two numbers was the whole of my problem.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Most of what circulates confidently in this community traces back to one summary of one study, and the qualifier was dropped somewhere in the third retelling.
Old thread, but it comes up first when you search for this, so it is worth updating. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.